Unilever was one of the first companies to recognise its conflict palm oil problem, but is now lagging behind its peers, says the Rainforest Action Network. Above, palm fruit is unloaded at a plantation on the Indonesian island of Sumatra, in September 2015.
Photograph: Antara Foto/Reuters

There are many checks and balances within a newspaper. There is the original author, the news or commissioning editor, and a system of revising the work of subeditors. While this is happening, lawyers will be checking for any legal problems.

It is a forceful condemnation of the world’s apparent apathy when “a great tract of the Earth is on fire”. He specifically mentions the clearing of land for “pulpwood, timber and palm oil” plantation as a cause of the fires.

Indonesia is burning. So why is the world looking away? | George Monbiot

Read more

He refers to the major international companies that use palm oil. He says some have promised to stop “destroying the rainforest” and the article says: “Some companies using palm oil have made visible efforts to reform their supply chains; but others seem to move more slowly and opaquely. Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results.”

However, in his original copy, that paragraph included Unilever, which was removed from the published version in print and online. Monbiot only became aware when the article had been published that the company’s name had been removed. He was concerned because of the commercial relationship between the Guardian and Unilever, and the way its removal might be read.

There has been no complaint to the readers’ editor. But, for the record, readers should know what happened.

Palm oil: why do we care more about orangutans than migrant workers?

Read more

In it the well-established international NGO discusses the progress of a number of companies in moving away from non-sustainable palm oil sources to truly sustainable ones. It identifies a group it defines as “laggards” in terms of progress. Among those are the three companies named in Monbiot’s published column.

Although Monbiot’s copy was filed early, it was only during the editing process in the late afternoon that a night lawyer was sent his article. The version the lawyer saw did not contain the links Monbiot had embedded, including to the Rainforest Action Network report. However, while making a quick check of all four companies, the lawyer discovered a 2014 “sustainable palm oil progress” report by Unilever charting its activities to source “all our palm oil from traceable and certified sources”. In that report the company says that a substantial part of its use of palm oil is covered by the offset system of GreenPalm certificates.

The report’s contents led to a discussion in which it was decided to remove Unilever’s name from Monbiot’s column. None of those involved in that decision were aware of any commercial relationship with Unilever.

By then it was close to deadline. An email was sent to Monbiot at 8.51 pm, which mentioned “small” cuts but did not specify what they were. Because the column was comment, none of the companies named were approached before publication.

Indonesia's forest fires: everything you need to know

Read more

When I spoke to Monbiot last week he said: “In May 2015, the Rainforest Action Network published a survey of major companies using palm oil and their progress in sorting out their supply chains. It listed a number of companies among the ‘laggards’ … four of them are probably known to most readers: Kraft, Heinz (these two companies have now merged to form a single conglomerate), PepsiCo and Unilever. So these were the ones I listed. I was trying to be dispassionate in doing so, ignoring Unilever’s deal with the Guardian in order to treat it as I would treat any other company.”

The Rainforest Action Network report praises Unilever as being “considered by many as the first company to recognise its conflict palm oil problem … However, it is now lagging behind its peers … it has failed to move beyond purchasing GreenPalm certificates. Unilever’s reliance on GreenPalm certificates remains a critical shortfall in its approach, as this offset model does not directly improve the practices of the companies from which it sources palm oil.”

I think there was, regrettably, a number of small but collectively significant miscommunications within the Guardian that led to Unilever incorrectly being omitted from the article in print and online and therefore, in fairness, I shall restore its name to the online story.